Florida Justices Overturn Teen Murder Conviction on Self-Defense Theory
The Florida Supreme Court agreed that Malik Jimer Williams killed one boy out of self defense, but disagreed that he'd injured another for the same reason.
January 07, 2019 at 12:58 PM
4 minute read
The Florida Supreme Court on Friday overturned a first-degree murder conviction that would have kept Malik Jimer Williams — a teenager when arrested — behind bars until he was in his 70s.
Williams claimed the lower courts should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal and resentencing, and the justices agreed — sort of.
Finding that the state hadn't disproved Williams' self defense theory at trial, the high court quashed his conviction. But it kept an attempted murder conviction in place, arguing that because Williams hesitated before shooting, a jury could have reasonably found guilt.
On Feb. 15, 2013, Williams cycled to a Shell store in Tampa with cousin Kito Felton on his handlebars. But after a prickly encounter with two other cyclists — Reginald Johnson and John Edward Brown III — Williams came home a killer.
There was some commotion when the boys crossed paths, causing some or all of them to fall from their bikes, according to the opinion. Due to conflicting testimony, it's not clear whether one group had tried to rob another.
The way Williams told it, Brown had threatened him with a gun, which landed on the floor when he fell off his bike. Williams claimed he picked it up in self-defense, killing Brown with bullets to the head and chest, and injuring Johnson with a shot to the hand.
A compromised decision?
The decision will shave 35 years off Williams' sentence, according to his appellate lawyer Christopher E. Cosden in Fort Myers, who said he was confused by the court's reasoning.
“Courts universally claim that when they sentence a defendant they apply the law to the facts and reach a fair result,” Cosden said. “Sometimes it appears that courts will stretch the facts or the law to reach a desired result.”
In Cosden's view, it was a stretch to say that Williams acted out of self defense when he shot one alleged attacker but not the other.
“The conclusion that a jury could have found (Williams) guilty because he hesitated is, to be most charitable about it, not an entirely reasonable interpretation of the facts,” Cosden said.
Justices Peggy Quince wrote the opinion, backed by R. Fred Lewis and Barbara Pariente — all three of whom will retire on Tuesday. Justice Jorge Labarga concurred in result without elaborating.
Chief Justice Charles T. Canady also concurred in result — but only in part, arguing both convictions should remain intact, but that he'd like to see Williams resentenced.
“My guess is that this was a compromised decision,” Cosden said. “That Kennedy, Polston and Lawson, and possibly Labarga, said, 'We'll go along with reversing the first degree murder, which cuts 35 years of his sentence, as long as he gets convicted of something.”
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Assistant Attorney General Elba Caridad Marion and bureau chief C. Suzanne Bechard represented the state, which did not respond to a request for comment before deadline.
Williams will likely now be released in 2038 when he'll be in his 40s, according to Cosden. Though he's unhappy with the result, Cosden conceded it could have been a lot worse for his client.
“I don't walk away from this feeling good because my client's going to do a 25-year mandatory minimum,” Cosden said. “But I feel a whole lot better about getting a first degree murder conviction reversed and getting 35 years knocked off his sentence.”
|Read the full court opinion:
More criminal law stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250